[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: unstable? nah. :-)

On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:57:22PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> This is the most sensible answer I've heard about this (and I've
> bitched about the limitation a lot). Maybe it's time for me to delve into
> the kernel source for the first time in 10 years.

I gather this was "fixed" in Linux 2.5.72 to no longer rely on the
jiffies counter to determine uptime anyway, and there are *numerous*
2.4.x patches to address this floating out there (check the LKML
archives for a plethora of examples that never got merged over the
last half-decade or so). To quote from the 2.5.72 changelog:

   Changes the uptime code to use the posix_clock_monotonic notion
   of uptime instead of the jiffies.  This time will track NTP
   changes and so should be better than your standard wristwatch (if
   your using ntp).

Of course, I could be misreading that...
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); PGP(9E8DFF2E4F5995F8FEADDC5829ABF7441FB84657);
SMTP(fungi@yuggoth.org); IRC(fungi@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); ICQ(114362511);
AIM(dreadazathoth); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); FINGER(fungi@yuggoth.org);
MUD(fungi@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); }

Reply to: